Also known as: immovable properties · immovables
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An interest in land or things so related to land as to be legally regarded as part of it. The category excludes property whose location can be changed and is used to distinguish rules governing transfers and choice of law from those applicable to chattels.
Ibrahim Iqbal, a manager at Iris Energy, signed and recorded a deed conveying a company-owned parcel to a creditor to settle his personal debt. The transfer was unauthorized by the board. Prosecutors charged him with theft because the statute reaches unlawful transfers of immovable property made to benefit a person not entitled to the interest.
Ingrid Innes purchased coastal land in State B from a seller domiciled in State A under a contract designating State A law. A neighbor later asserted a prescriptive easement based on decades of use entirely within State B. The court applied the law of the situs to determine whether an interest in the immovable had been acquired.
Imani Idowu and Integrity Partners negotiated a mortgage on land located in State B while both parties were domiciled in State A. After default the lender sought to enforce redemption rights. Because the property was immovable the court evaluated contacts under the most significant relationship test to select the governing law.
Ike Ingram conveyed land situated in State B to Icarus Aviation under a contract formed in State A. When a dispute arose over title the forum court applied the full law of State B including its choice of law rules so that the outcome would match the result a State B court would reach on the same facts.
Isaiah Ishikawa a U.S. resident inherited immovable property located in a foreign country. State probate rules conditioned the inheritance on reciprocity with the foreign nation. The Supreme Court held that the state statute impermissibly interfered with federal foreign affairs power when applied to interests in the immovable.
An Oregon resident died intestate in 1962, leaving an estate that included both real and personal property. The decedent's sole heirs, who resided in East Germany, sought to inherit under Oregon probate proceedings. Members of the Oregon State Land Board petitioned the probate court for escheat of the net proceeds of the estate under Oregon Revised Statutes § 111.070. The statute conditioned a nonresident alien's right to inherit on proof of three requirements. One requirement was the existence of a reciprocal right of United States citizens to take property on the same terms as citizens or inhabitants of the foreign country. Another was the right of United States citizens to receive payment within the United States of funds originating from estates in the foreign country. A third was the right of the foreign heirs to receive the proceeds without confiscation in whole or in part by the foreign government. The burden rested on the nonresident alien to establish these facts. The provision concerning confiscation had been added to the statute in 1951, expanding upon earlier general reciprocity language. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Article IV of the 1923 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Germany permitted the East German heirs to take the real property but, following Clark v. Allen, did not permit them to take the personal property. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. In applying the statute in this and related cases, Oregon courts examined the credibility of diplomatic statements from communist-controlled countries, the discretion exercised by foreign banking authorities in issuing licenses for fund transfers, and the political structures under which foreign inheritance laws operated. The Department of Justice appeared as amicus curiae and stated that it did not contend the application of the statute in this case unduly interfered with the United States' conduct of foreign relations.
View caseTheft of immovable property occurs when a person unlawfully transfers land or any interest in it with the purpose of benefiting himself or another not entitled to the interest. Theft of movable property requires an unlawful taking or exercise of control with purpose to deprive the owner. The immovable form focuses on the transfer itself rather than permanent deprivation.
Supporting sources
Yes. An easement is a nonpossessory interest in land. Executing a document that creates an easement over another's property without authority and for the benefit of an unentitled party satisfies the elements of theft by unlawful transfer of immovable property.
Supporting sources
Interests in immovables are determined by the law of the state where the immovable is located. That reference includes the totality of the situs state's law including its choice of law rules so that the forum reaches the same result a court of the situs would reach.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a manager without authority executes and records a deed transferring title from the true owner to an LLC she controls she has unlawfully transferred immovable property with the purpose of benefiting herself or an entity not entitled to the interest.
Supporting sources
…due. II Article IV of the 1923 treaty with Germany provides: "Where, on the death of any person holding real or other immovable property or interests therein within the territories of one High Contracting Party, such property or interests therein would, by the laws of the country or by a testamentary disposition, descend or…